Mitt Romney actually comes up with a genius idea

[Minimalist]

Since hanging out in some atheist forums I have found that many pro-Democrat people routinely demonize and characterize republican voters and candidates as stupid.

Go to jesus freak boards and listen to your pals call Obama a kenyan, muslim and socialist.

Then you can come back and apologize.


If the GOP does not want to be seen as stupid it should stop putting forward candidates who are fucking assholes.

[Tino]

How about you? Are you ready to admit that Bush lied us into the war in Iraq? That his wild claims of coming mushroom clouds and hidden WMD were not even sort of true?

I think you're being intellectually dishonest here, and here's why:

1. I'm sure you know the difference between being wrong/in error and lying. I've seen no evidence he knowingly lied about WMD in Iraq as you claim.

2. I'm sure you know that Bush was not alone in believing that Iraq had and was hiding an advanced WMD program. You must know that virtually all of our senior national security leaders cited the same information as fact - President Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton to name two. They are on public record as saying so. And we learned after the war that Saddam Hussein was deliberately trying to create the impression that he had such a program. So again, where's the lie when prior administrations and political adversaries were making the same claims about Iraq's development of WMD?

3. I'm sure you know that WMD is a broad term, which includes chemical weapons, and that it's a fact that Hussein used chemical WMD, which obviously means he had WMD.

I would like you to point me to where Bush linked Al Qeda to the reason to invade Iraq. I know that's how his naysayers like to spin it, but what I recall, and the speeches of his that I've re-read, don't mention Al Qeda as a reason. Here for example is the UN speech where it's clear that the rationale is to keep advanced WMD from falling into the hands of terror groups. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-521781.html

[TaraJo]

Romney is going to win. Mark my words.

And most jets have cockpit windows that open, so I don't think the open windows idea is quite as dumb as you suggest, nor do I think he was making a serious suggestion.

The thing with Romney isn't that he keeps saying/doing things that are stupid, he's saying and doing things that are unpopular, which makes those moves politically stupid. Politics is a big popularity contest; you can get over stupid; you can't get over unpopular.

[Darth]

It's not a conclusion that I like coming to. I would prefer things were different. I'm a former Reagan-worshiping Republican. My politics were once conservative, then libertarian and today somewhere between liberal and libertarian. So there was a time when I did find the right more intelligent and made a more compelling case than they do today.

Sounds like you have a choice then...

Deregulation? That worked well, didn't it? I used to believe in rational markets when I was in business school. How many financial crashes must we endure before this idea is finally scrapped?
...
Name the conservative idea, be it foreign policy, economic policy or social policy. It was tried under Bush and spectacularly failed.

Cmon DP, we've established (in a previous thread) that the deregulation was a sham, it was a move towards more corporatism, rather than towards a free market.

This is not a party of intellectual heavy weights. The only intelligent and sane candidate who ran was John Huntsman, and he lost the primary in spectacular fashion.

No love for Gary Johnson from a person between liberal and libertarian?




Did Saddam not have gas and use it on the kurds? Though yeah, the reason(s) they gave were bullshit.
Edit: that is what I would classify as a WMD, but yeah, it meant only nukes?

[DeistPaladin]

I think you're being intellectually dishonest here, and here's why:

1. I'm sure you know the difference between being wrong/in error and lying.

Yes, I do. People who make mistakes usually correct themselves after they've been shown to have been mistaken.

Bush, by contrast, stood up at the 2004 RNC and spoke about his anguished decision to go to war with Iraq but knew he had to because we'd been attacked on 9/11. By that point, anyone paying attention knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet, he still used this attack as his justification for the war.

In 2006, a reporter FINALLY had the temerity to ask Bush why we invaded Iraq and Bush repeated the lie that it was because we'd been attacked on 9/11. When Thomas, the reporter in question, pressed him that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, he brushed her off and went to the next question.

It's always the Bush apologists but never Bush himself who offers the "Well, maybe he didn't lie. Maybe he made a mistake". If this were true, then let him say so and apologize. Furthermore, let him show the faulty intelligence that made him so certain that Saddam was in league with the terrorists of Al Qaida or that there was serious risk to our security that justified his hyperbolic language about "don't let the smoking gun be the mushroom cloud." Let's see the faulty intelligence that led to the mistake if it exists.

Bush lied. People died. Stop making excuses for him.

2. I'm sure you know that Bush was not alone in believing that Iraq had and was hiding an advanced WMD program.

So we've gone from "Hey, he just made a mistake" to "Oh yeah, well, he wasn't the only one".

There certainly were quite a few people brow-beaten into parroting this message. One CIA agent's career was ruined because of what her husband wrote. I fail to see why this absolves Bush for his lies or disastrous war.

Democrats were also under pressure to support the drum beat of war. I remember that time well. "Shut up and support the troops or you're a traitor".

Many of the Democrat leaders during that time, much to my disgust, quickly collapsed into the fetal position whenever Bush questioned their patriotism and were willing to fall in line. Their spineless nature does not justify Bush or make his claims true.

So again, where's the lie when prior administrations and political adversaries were making the same claims about Iraq's development of WMD?

Bush was president. Bush pushed for this war. Where's his "personal responsibility" he campaigned on. I hold him primarily responsible.

3. I'm sure you know that WMD is a broad term, which includes chemical weapons, and that it's a fact that Hussein used chemical WMD, which obviously means he had WMD.

Are you serious? So now we're at "...and he might have meant...". This is the stuff of Christian apologetics. He said "mushroom cloud".

I would like you to point me to where Bush linked Al Qeda to the reason to invade Iraq. I know that's how his naysayers like to spin it, but what I recall, and the speeches of his that I've re-read, don't mention Al Qeda as a reason. Here for example is the UN speech where it's clear that the rationale is to keep advanced WMD from falling into the hands of terror groups. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-521781.html

I thought I remembered otherwise and a quick google search of "Saddam, Links to Al Qaida" confirmed that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Huss...llegations

[cratehorus]

Since hanging out in some atheist forums I have found that many pro-Democrat people routinely demonize and characterize republican voters and candidates as stupid.

When you've gotten to the point where you accept the idea that an entire political party is stupid (not just specific individuals in it, but the party, the candidates and the voters), you've really lost the option to do anything but mindlessly vote for the other party, becoming exactly the thing you criticize republicans for doing - being mindless voters - brainwashed zombies who vote for their party no matter how dumb the candidate.

I agree were all brainwashed zombies